Quote Originally Posted by CPorter View Post
F64 was as much symbolic as it was anything else, IMO. So to be pigeon holed by abundant use of a small aperture, IMO, is looking at it the wrong way. The primary interest was in separating pictorialism from what the group held as its primary goal, that is to practice "straight" photography-----meaning, photography that was defined by.........."possessing no qualities of technique, composition, or idea, derivative of any other art form."----from the manifesto itself. You can find plenty of references of Adams relating that concept to "the optical qualities of the lens", letting the lens define the art of photography. To have a fuzzy or otherwise final different representation from what the quality of the lens can provide in a pure photographic image, was what the group was most about, IMO.
And that goal, IMO, is f64's artistic failing.

It encourages a technical discipline, a pure definable craft, rather than the artistic expression of ideas. That manifesto is fine for reportage/news/travel... But it rejects well developed artistic ideas that, for example, HCB employed so successfully and that cinematographers have applied so well for so long. Rules that were well developed before there was photography.